The
Secretary of the United States Department of Labor (the
“Department”) brought suit against Unite Here
Local 26, alleging that the union violated § 104 of the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
(“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. § 414, when it
permitted a member of Local 26 to inspect the union's
collective bargaining agreements (“agreements” or
“CBAs”) with employers other than the
complainant's employer but refused to permit her to take
notes while reviewing those agreements. The union disagrees
with the Secretary's interpretation of the statute,
contending that § 104 does not require a local union to
allow a member or employee to inspect CBAs other than one
that affects her own rights and, to the extent that the union
does permit such inspection, the statute does not give a
member the right to take unlimited notes on the contents of
those CBAs. The parties have cross-moved for judgment on the
pleadings regarding the proper statutory interpretation of
§ 104.

I.The Controversy

The
complaining member, Dimie Poweigha, is employed as a server
by Levy Restaurants. Local 26 has negotiated CBAs with more
than forty employers, including Levy Restaurants. In 2014,
Poweigha requested an opportunity to review thirty-seven CBAs
negotiated by the union with employers other than her own.
Although the union maintained that it was not required to
allow her to inspect agreements other than her own, the union
eventually agreed to permit inspection. However, the union
refused to permit Poweigha to take notes during the
inspection.

II.Discussion

Approximately
twenty years after the National Labor Relations Act was
passed, “Congress realized that vital non-economic
interests of employees were not being adequately protected
under existing legislation. The LMRDA was therefore enacted
to regulate the internal affairs of labor unions and protect
union members from autocratic abuses by union
officials.” Doty v. Sewall, 784 F.2d 1, 4 (1st
Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). “In enacting the LMRDA,
Congress found that ‘it is essential that labor
organizations . . . and their officials adhere to the highest
standards of responsibility and ethical conduct in
administering the affairs of their organizations, ' and
declared that the LMRDA was designed ‘to eliminate or
prevent improper practices on the part of labor
organizations.'” McCafferty v. Local 254, Serv.
Emps. Int'l Union, 186 F.3d 52, 57 (1st Cir. 1999)
(quoting 29 U.S.C. §§ 401(a), (c)).

Title I
of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 411-415, provides a
“Bill of Rights” for union members. Id.
(quoting Molina v. Union de Trabajadores de Muelles,
762 F.2d 166, 167 (1st Cir. 1985)). It was
“specifically designed to promote the ‘full and
active participation by the rank and file in the affairs of
the union.'” Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 7-8
(1973) (quoting Am. Fed. of Musicians v. Wittstein,
379 U.S. 171, 182-83 (1964)). The “rights enumerated in
Title I were deemed ‘vital to the independence of the
membership and the effective and fair operation of the union
as the representative of its membership.'”
Id. at 8 (footnote omitted) (quoting Cole v.
Hall, 462 F.2d 777, 780 (2d Cir. 1972)); see also
Wirtz v. Hotel, Motel & Club Emps. Union, Local 6,
391 U.S. 492, 497 (1968) (describing that purpose of LMRDA
was “to protect the rights of rank-and-file members to
participate fully in the operation of their union through
processes of democratic self-government, and, through the
election process, to keep the union leadership responsive to
the membership”).

The
present controversy arises from a provision of the so-called
“Bill of Rights” concerning the right of workers
under defined circumstances to be able to review CBAs entered
into by a labor organization, including local unions. Section
104, entitled “Right to copies of collective bargaining
agreements, ” provides:

It shall be the duty of the secretary or corresponding
principal officer of each labor organization, in the case of
a local labor organization, to forward a copy of each
collective bargaining agreement made by such labor
organization with any employer to any employee who requests
such a copy and whose rights as such employee are directly
affected by such agreement, and in the case of a labor
organization other than a local labor organization, to
forward a copy of any such agreement to each constituent unit
which has members directly affected by such agreement; and
such officer shall maintain at the principal office of the
labor organization of which he is an officer copies of any
such agreement made or received by such labor organization,
which copies shall be available for inspection by any
member or by any employee whose rights are affected by such
agreement. The provisions of section 440 of this title
shall be applicable in the enforcement of this section.

29 U.S.C. § 414 (emphasis added).

At
particular issue is the proper construction to be given the
italicized clause. The parties dispute whether the italicized
clause requires a copy of any CBA the union is required to
maintain for inspection at its principal office be made
available to any member of the union on request, regardless
of whether the requester's rights are affected by that
CBA. They also dispute whether, to the extent inspection is
permitted, the “member” or “employee”
may take notes during that inspection.

When
tasked with interpreting a statute,

we begin our analysis with the statutory text and determine
whether the same is plain and unambiguous. In so doing, we
accord the statutory text “its ordinary meaning by
reference to the ‘specific context in which that
language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a
whole.'” If the statutory language is plain and
unambiguous, we “must apply the statute according to
its terms, ” except in unusual cases where, for
example, doing so would bring about absurd results. “If
the statute is ambiguous, we look beyond the text to the
legislative ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.